Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7777 JARROD W. WILLIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NORA HUNT; JENNIFER WALSH; HORACE HAMMONDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-cr-03067-BO) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jarrod W.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7777 JARROD W. WILLIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NORA HUNT; JENNIFER WALSH; HORACE HAMMONDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-cr-03067-BO) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jarrod W. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7777
JARROD W. WILLIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NORA HUNT; JENNIFER WALSH; HORACE HAMMONDS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-03067-BO)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jarrod W. Willis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jarrod W. Willis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court. Willis v. Hunt, No.
5:14-ct-03067-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 2014). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2